About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
majority leader eric cantor and congressman peter king are rebuking the norquist anti-tax pledge, a new gang of six saying in recent days they would break that pledge to look for new ways to generate revenue republican congressman peter king said bluntly, he is not ruling anything out. >> i agree entirely. a pledge to sign 20 years ago, 18 years ago. i think everything should be on the table. lou: two of the senator's not only reversing themselves on raising taxes but also rethinking their opposition to a susan rice secretary of state apartment. senators gramm and mccain both revising their political positions in a bit -- at a breathtaking pace. joining a summer we are calling the republican reset, the fiscal cliff, of course, and the coup in egypt, the president seemingly in search of a campaign. after a long holiday weekend, does anyone remember been gauzy? to find out, we are joined by of and the daily column founder and editor cockies contributor. thank you. let's start with republican party. is that too strong a word? in disarray. >> i think disarray is a little strong right now. w
to see you, grover. thank you for joining us. you heard lindsey graham a moment ago. peter king talked about saxby chambliss as well. here's what he said. >> i agree entirely with saxby chambliss. a pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that congress. for instance, if i were in congress in 1941 i would have signed -- supported a declaration of war against japan. i'm not going to attack japan today. the world has changed. >> senator john mccain weighed in as well. here's what he said. i'm sorry. let me read to you what he said. fewer and fewer people are signing this, quote, pledge. do you worry that this pledge is losing its grip on lawmakers? >> look, soledad, as you know, the people making this case, the three -- the two senators and the congressman that were put forward, they all said that two years ago when we were arguing over the debt ceiling limit. so their position hasn't changed. and during the debt ceiling limit we cut spending, we didn't raise taxes. so other republicans did not listen to peter king or these others and say, oh, let's go raise taxes. they're sp
norquist's no tax pledge. one of the latest is republican representative peter king. >> i agree entirely with saxby chambliss. a pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago is for that congress. if i were in congress in 1941 i would have supported a declaration of war against japan. i'm not going to attack japan today. the world has changed and the economic situation is different. >> republican senator saxby chambliss said, quote, country is more important than pledges. sorry, americans for tax reform and grover norquist, i'm in and out. it all sounds promising. you know, when it comes to compromise. except senators like lindsey graham didn't exactly say he was now open to raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. he actually said he supports capping deductions and buying down debt. which is different. so the question this morning, how excited should we really be by all of this talk of throwing grover norquist under the bust? under the bus, rather, not the bus. cnn contributor will cain is here along with jason johnson, chief political correspondent and political science professor at h
and the no tax pledge, that pledge doesn't obtain anymore because the situation has changed. peter king said the same on "meet the press." what say you about the norquist pledge? you're a signatory. >> i really am surprised about the obsession with this one individual that doesn't compare at all to the lack of obsession about the economic doldrums that we're in as a nation. look, people didn't sign that pledge because they were coerced into it. people signed that pledge because it encompasses the kinds of solutions that will move us in the right direction. increasing tax rates on the american people and on small businesses means you take money from people, money from small businesses, and you transfer it to the government. we don't believe that that's the wise place to do that. we believe that those dollars are best spent and the economy is helped most when those dollars are left in people's pockets and small businesses. so why folks would negotiate with themselves about whether or not they still think that that's a positive economic principle, is beyond me. >> well, presuming that you can g
have been cracking this door a little bit. peter king said over the weekend for instance if i was in congress in 1941 with refrpbl reference to the pledge you made i would have signed a war against japan. i'm not going to attack japan today. the world has changed and the economic situation is different. that from peter kin. about is make it clear, what raising revenues and not tax rates. just on the surface, why do you believe that the door is starting to crack a little bit? why are republicans talking this way? >> two things, the people who are saying that they might vote for a tax increase that bush got talked into in 1990 for return for make believe spending cuts are the same people who said this two years ago, this is a complete media-created frenzy. peter king said this two years ago, lindsey graham said this two years ago. chamblis of georgia said this two years ago. they said all these things all during the negotiations where they tried to undermine where john boehner and mitch mcconnell got 2.5 trillion in spending cuts without a dollar than tax increase and those peop
to the idea of higher taxes broadly. we heard over the weekend senator lindsey graham, congressman peter king, joining in --. megyn: but they're talking about closing loopholes and deductions that is what romney ran on and it has been republican position for a while. >> they just discovered it. where were they when the republican standard-bearer needed that support? there is lack of intellectual integrity surrounding this entire issue. if they had any shame in washington, d.c. they would be embarassed. >> they are political animals. they have to think what is sellable to their constituents. when the simpson-bowles debt commission got together and we have to tackle the debt and it will kill us all, they said, what if we raised the age of social security retirement one year. went to 68. did it in 30 years. not going to do it right now, 30 years. dick durbin, wanted that. i will sign onto that, a democrat. we don't have the time. we have a dick durbin sound bite. dick durbin said that. he was in favor of that. >> i can't stand it. we're losing dick durbin sound bite. megyn: time is short. the po
and said i don't know who changed the talking points to take out al-qaeda. that's what peter king told us when he came on our show among other, and mike rogers attested to that. and then a couple days later his office came out and said, it was us. we were the ones who changed the talking points to take out al-qaeda. and then mike romers said -- mike rogers, mr. clapper, can you explain why you just told us it wasn't you and you had no idea who did it? so that's why i asked if she gave you a name of who briefed her. >> no. we have not been getting a name, but i would say, megyn, that i still think that there needs to be more sufficient answers as to what agency changed the talking points and who did that, and those are some of the questions we have answers -- we expect answers to. and also why they did that. it's absurd to me to think that you would omit the reference of al-qaeda. so we didn't want to tip al-qaeda off? and particularly since it's very important that the american people not be left a misleading impression which is what happened here. and not only did it happen, if the intel
, saxby chambliss lindsey graham, peter king, bob corker is the other one who said we're not bound by this. we don't feel we're bound by this pledge anymore. chuck schumer yesterday dan indicating that this -- he sees this as a good sign. >> republicans in both the house and senate are deciding they no longer want to be married to this pledge. republicans are saying they want a divorce from grover norquist. that alone is a leading indicator that the fiscal deal is within reach. both sides are still far apart. the discussions over the next few weeks will be difficult but with each new republican disavowing grover norquist, the chances of a deal rises sharply. >> bill: daniella, is grover over? >> oh, please, lord, let it be true! you know, i think so. there was a funny thing politico arena they ask these questions every day. one of the questions a couple of days ago was is grover norquist's reign over. the first person who responded was grover norquist. no. republicans are -- blah, blah, blah. >> bill: he says his
of an update on the fiscal cliff and the progress that we saw. i have mentioned saxby chambliss and peter king, as well as lindsay gramm, putting distance between themselves and the pledge. with that kind of compromise coming from the republicans, where is the president willing to give? we have been asking over and over about the tax rates and whether he would, instead of increasing tax rates, perhaps settle for closing loopholes. could you tell us more about where the president stands on this? and what kind of confidence you can give the public that this will get done? >> let me start at the top by saying that some of the comments that you mentioned are welcome. they represent what we hope is a difference in tone and approach to these problems, and a recognition that a balanced approach to deficit reduction is the one that is most beneficial for our economy, protect the middle-class, strengthens its, creates levels of opportunity for those who aspire to the middle class to get there. i would also say that the president has made clear that he would not sign a bill that extends the bush era tax
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)